[Talk-GB] electric fences
There are several instances locally where a footpath across a field is crossed by an electric fence. The farmer usually fits a length of rubber hosepipe over the wire so that walkers can safely step over the fence. Sometimes with the aid of a couple of concrete blocks. How to map? Technically it is probably a form of stile. But the problem is that the location isn't fixed. Electric fences are moved about according to which area of the field the livestock are currently grazing. In a large field the position could change significantly. But walkers with restricted mobility do need to know that there is one somewhere in the field. The position might be important if there is an alternative gate or other access which could be used. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on
JOSM preset is: highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=no I quite like it as it doesn't imply one use is preferred to another. On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote: Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but designated foot and cycles shared? Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974 There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag nonetheless? Thanks. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts
Following a lack of answers to questions at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=5229644 (in lots of cases they've responded, but have not actually answered the question) with a DWG hat on I've sent them a message that they have to read before continuing to map at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4214 . I'd like to know the source used for the comment "You sometimes have to ignore signage as they are signed with convenient numbers rather than the real ones"at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60806661 . I suspect the "signage to be ignored" referred to there are the large blue signs telling drivers "if you want to go to the M6 south, go this way". However, I'd expect the information on the 100m markers to be more useful. Is anyone aware of a previous changeset based on those, or photos on e.g. Mapillary that might help? Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #539 2020-11-10-2020-11-16
The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 539, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of things happening in the openstreetmap world: https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13975/ Enjoy! Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about how to write a post here: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm weeklyOSM? who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages where?: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] FWD: Revert the "Felixstowe to Nuneaton" relation
On 21/11/2020 15:56, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7521925 That is the relation I am talking about. An edit made by user nplath seems to have made this relation into a clone of the "Ipswich To Cambridge-Ely" relation. You can tell this because the number of members went down from ~400 to ~150. You can see the history of the relation at http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=7521925 . The changeset that you're talking about, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67930034 , claimed to be a revert, and a previous changeset that affected the line https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67336351 was reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67709664 . Comments made on changesets by this user can be seen at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=8350466 , but unfortunately they don't include all of the reverts and counter-reverts. > If somehow to members of this relation can be reverted to back when there were 400 members, then that would be good. Given that the original change happened in March 2019, no-one's going to be able to "wave a magic wand" and restore this relation to back how it was then, since there will be ways that existed then that don't exist any more. However the restore is done there will be quite a lot of "manually filling in gaps" needed. Are you asking the list because you'd like to check that it is a good idea, because you'd like to do it yourself but don't know how, or simply don't have time to do it yourself and just wanted to make more people aware of the problem? All of these perfectly valid reasons of course. If I was going to do it I'd probably start by undoing the relation back to the changeset 67822240 version with "undo.pl" from the perl revert scripts, and then fill in the gaps manually by looking at http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/10rc (that's an overpass query of that relation on a date just after the last "valid" change). However, there may be quite a few gaps to fill in, so it'd likely need someone with a bit of free time to do that part (which depending on the answer to the previous question, may or may not be you). Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
